Left Furious with Obama Over Tax Cuts: Trouble Ahead?

As the Wire mentioned earlier, Congressional
Democrats are near revolt over President Obama's deal with Republicans
to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid is calling the plan merely a "framework," and House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi won't commit to supporting it. Sen. Mary Landrieu called
the deal "almost morally corrupt."

So far, there are 30 senators
opposed to the bill, 12 supporting, and 18 in the middle. But if the
Democrats do block the legislation, Republicans will simply pass it when
they take over in January--"perhaps after extracting further
concessions from the White House," The New York Times' David M. Herszenhorn and Sheryl Gay Stolberg report.

Liberals
are furious over the deal, but in a press conference discussing the
compromise, instead of trying to win them over, Obama took at shot
at them. Obama told Democrats he couldn't let the middle class tax cuts
lapse for the sake of defending "core principles" of increasing the tax
burden on the wealthiest, and compared it to the debate over the public
option in the health care bill. Lawmakers shouldn't prefer to "have the
satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the
American people," Obama said. Will this tough-talking tactic win over
his party? Here's the rundown on just how angry liberals are, why, and how much trouble they're likely to make (some think there's a chance the Democratic infighting might actually help Obama).

Liberal Activists Take Down White House Phone Lines, Jennifer Bendery
reports at Roll Call. The activists, organized by the Agenda
Project, are "gearing up for another onslaught of calls to Senate
Democratic leaders in an eleventh-hour push to kill the deal." The
"group, which boasts 10,000 supporters, has plans to push back every
step of the way" against the deal.

Obama Might as Well Switch Parties, Michael Collins
writes at The Agonist. "When Mary Landrieu opposes your strategy on tax
cuts for the rich, you know you've gone too far. But Obama is just
doing his job, the one he signed up for--an elegant, charming
functionary for the ruling class who could fool people just long enough
to allow the Bush bailout looting to continue in full force."

Obama Tries to Persuade Dems by Calling Them Dumb "President Obama rallies the base in two ways: by lifting them
up, and lecturing them," Slate's John Dickerson
writes. "Appearing exasperated at times, Obama tried
to explain (again) why he had to make the deal on tax cuts with
Republicans. It was a public event, but it felt like a closed-circuit
address to the Democratic caucus. When he repeated his reasoning, you
could occasionally hear his implied salutation: 'You numbskulls.'"
Dickerson says. "Liberals want president Obama to fight, and he
is--against them. He doesn't get why they don't see the political reality
of the situation: Taxes will go up for everyone if he doesn't make this
deal. The economy will buckle. Families will suffer." But, says Dickerson, "it is not
often the case that you can persuade people to change their opinion by
hinting that they're not very bright."

Why Liberals Feel Snubbed Looking at the numbers, Democrats got
more billions more dollars for the folks they care about than the
Republicans got for their base. So why are progressives so mad? "My
conversations with various progressives over the past 24 hours," Ezra Klein
writes for The Washington Post, "have
convinced me that the problem is less the specifics of the deal, than the way in which it was reached. Put simply, Obama and the
Democrats didn't fight for them," he explains.

There were no veto threats or serious
effort to take the case to the public. Instead, the White House
disappeared into a closed room with the Republicans and cut a deal that
they'd made no effort to sell to progressives. ... The White House walked out of the negotiations
with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way
that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases,
utterly betrayed.

Democrats in Denial, But Obama Can't Be, Ralph Reed
observes at The National Review. "The real question is, will enough
Democrats swallow the pill and vote for the compromise that even Obama
has only reluctantly and half-heartedly embraced? To date they have been
in denial," by reelecting Nancy Pelosi and blaming their losses on
shadowy outside donors, Reed writes.

This is the stuff of fantasy.
Obama does not have the luxury of living in the Hill Democrats' parallel
universe. The Iowa caucuses are 13 months away. The reelection campaign
looms. That is why if the Democrats vote 'no' and take down this
compromise, an even better deal for the GOP will pass in January in a
Republican-run House. This fight is over.

Best Case Scenario: This Gets ReaganesqueJoe Gandelman
notes at The Moderate Voice "progressive Democrats' attitude that
Obama doesn't deserve re-election because he wouldn't dig in his heels
and fight on this issue." He thinks "Obama may
eventually benefit" from this, as it will "be particularly pleasing
to many centrists and independents who think both sides must work
together ... Just as the GOP's conservative wing wasn't
happy with Ronald Reagan, the Democrat's liberal wing is increasingly
unhappy with Barack Obama. Will Obama eventually enjoy the same result
as Reagan--or will he wind up a one term President who goes down in
history as someone who could run a good campaign but wasn't nimble
enough politically?"

Or, Similarly, This Might Be Obama's 'Sister Souljah Moment,' Outside the Beltway's James Joyner
writes. "During his successful 1992 run for the presidency, Bill
Clinton famously denounced the rapper Sister Souljah at a Rainbow
Coalition address." Clinton's base felt betrayed, but "the incident
bolstered his 'family values' credentials with centrist voters and,
ultimately, the blacks had nowhere else to go. ... While less dramatic,
I’m wondering if President Obama's press conference yesterday, bitterly
railing against Democrats in the Congress for being 'purist' and
'sanctimonious' while he’s working hard to 'get health care for all
Americans' and other 'victories for the American people,' isn’t his
equivalent." Sure congressional Dems are mad. "But, frankly, who cares
what they think? Certainly not Obama, who wants to get credit for
compromise and really didn't want to be defending raising taxes during a
recession in the next campaign."